ORDER This second appeal is projected by the defendant inveighing the judgement and decree dated 26.09.2008 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai, in A.S. No. 78 of 2007 wherein and by which the judgment and decree dated 07.08.2007 passed by the learned District Munsif, Arni, in O.S. No. 343 of 1999, were reversed allowing the First Appeal at the instance of the plaintiffs. 2. The plaintiffs / respondents 1 and 2 herein filed suit O.S. No. 343 of 1999 for recovery of possession of "B" Schedule item of the suit property and for permanent injunction. 3. A summary of brief facts, relevant to dispose of the present appeal, is recapitulated as under:- (a) According to the plaintiffs, who claim to have purchased the suit property on 17.03.86 from one Kuppan, they have been in possession of the suit property, which is about 10 cents of land described as 'B' schedule in the plaint and situate in Survey No. 95/3, from the date purchase by cultivating the same. The main allegation of the plaintiffs is that the defendant, who own the property in S. No. 95/5, had been trying to disturb the possession of the plaintiffs by encroaching the 10 cents of land and started growing up crops on the same. Hence the plaintiffs filed the suit for the relief of recovery of possession and permanent injunction. (b) Resisting the suit, the defendant filed written statement claiming that he owns ancestral property to an extent of 0.48.0 hectares of land in S.No. 95/5 and adjoining the same, there is a small extent of Poramboke land in S. No. 95/4, which was enjoyed by him and his predecessors in title. The defendant specifically denied the encroachment alleged by the plaintiffs and claimed that he had been enjoying the 10 cents mentioned in 'B' schedule for several years besides claiming that he perfected title by adverse possession. According to the defendant, the plaintiffs, who knew about the above facts, ought to have filed a suit for declaration of title and for possession of the said 0.10 cents and the suit filed only for bare injunction is not maintainable and prayed for dismissal of the same. (c) The learned District Munsif, Arni, on the basis of the above pleadings, proceeded with the trial of the suit. (c) The learned District Munsif, Arni, on the basis of the above pleadings, proceeded with the trial of the suit. On the side of the plaintiffs, the second plaintiff Poovan, examined himself as P.W.1 besides examining one Gopalan and Palani as P.W.2 and P.W.3 respectively and Exs. A.1 to A.6 were marked. To nullify the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs, the defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and also four more witnesses as D.Ws. 2 to 5 and marked Exs. B.1 to B.9. Besides, one Dhanajayan, Commissioner was examined as C.W.1 and Palanivelu was examined as C.W.2 and Exs. C.1 to C.3 were marked. (d) The learned trial Judge, appreciating the pleadings, as well as scanning the materials, decreed the suit regarding 'A' schedule property, but however, dismissed the suit with respect to 'B' Schedule property. Challenging the dismissal of the suit with regard to 'B' Schedule property, the plaintiffs preferred appeal in A.S. No. 78 of 2007. However, the defendants had not preferred any cross appeal. The Lower Appellate Court, after appreciating the facts, reversed the finding of the trial Court with respect to the 'B' schedule property and decreed the suit in its entirety. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has projected the instant Second Appeal. 4. At the time of admission of this Second Appeal on 01.10.2009, this Court formulated the following substantial questions of law for consideration:- (i) Whether the Lower appellate Court is right in holding that the defendant / appellant has not prescribed the title for suit 'B' schedule property i.e. 10 cents by adverse possession especially when the 10 cents were enjoyed by the defendant from time immemorial and to the knowledge of the plaintiff from the date of plaintiff's purchase? (ii) Whether the Lower Appellate Court is right in decreeing the suit for recovery of possession without a prayer for declaration especially when the defendant claimed the 10 cents by adverse possession? (iii) Whether the Lower Appellate Court is right in decreeing the suit for recovery of possession especially when the plaintiffs have filed the above suit after 12 years from the date of purchase which is hit by Article 65 of Limitation Act? While admitting the Second Appeal, this Court also granted interim stay in respect of recovery of possession of 'B' Schedule property till 03.12.2009. While admitting the Second Appeal, this Court also granted interim stay in respect of recovery of possession of 'B' Schedule property till 03.12.2009. This Court further directed the appellant to pay cost to the respondents as directed by the Court below on or before 03.12.2009. 5. Heard Mr. P. Satheeshkumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. V. Lakshminarayanan, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records. 6. From the materials available on record, it is seen that the suit 'A' schedule property is situated in S. No. 95/3 in an extent of 1.03 acres and 'B' schedule property is situated in S. No. 95/3 an extent of 0.10 cents. The respondents / plaintiffs claimed to have purchased the suit property under Ex. A.4 sale deed dated 17.03.1986 and the same is not disputed. Though there is no dispute with respect to the 'A' schedule property comprising an extent of 1.13 acres, it is averred that subsequent to the filing of the suit, there was an encroachment by the appellant / defendant to an extent of 0.10 cents which made the plaintiffs to seek the relief of recovery of possession of 10 cents. On the other hand, the appellant / defendant claimed title by adverse possession. P.W.1 also had admitted in his deposition that 10 cents of property is in possession of the defendant. It is also seen from the papers that while the respondents/plaintiffs have filed only Exs. A.1 to A.3 and A5 kist receipts, the defendant had filed kist receipts Exs. B.3, B.4, B.8 and B9 and 'B' Memo notices under Exs. B.5 to B.7 issued for the Poramboke property to show that he is in possession of the same. Even though the plaintiffs had claimed that the above said 'B' schedule property was trespassed by the defendant subsequent to the filing of the suit, before the lower Appellate Court, the defendant, based on the admission made by PW1, pleaded that he is in possession of the suit 'B' schedule property even prior to the filing of the suit and as such, the defendant claimed title by adverse possession. 7. At this juncture, it would be useful to refer to paragraph 8 of the written statement and the relevant passage pleaded by the defendant is extracted hereunder:- ".... 7. At this juncture, it would be useful to refer to paragraph 8 of the written statement and the relevant passage pleaded by the defendant is extracted hereunder:- ".... Thus the possession and enjoyment of the defendant of the said 0.10 cents in S. No. 95/3 is open, continuous, hostile and uninterrupted. Hence, this defendant by his long possession of the said 0.10 cents has also perfected title by adverse possession." 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant contended that the Lower Appellate Court had not considered the oral evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 and D.Ws. 1 to 5. It is his specific contention that the defendant had been in uninterrupted possession and that he got the title by adverse possession. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant / defendant contended that the defendant's father and his predecessors were in possession of the property for more than 100 years. So saying, the learned counsel sought for the interference of this Court. 9. Conversely, it is the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondents / plaintiffs that the Lower Appellate Court has considered the entire gamut of the matter and has appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record in the suit and has come to a clear conclusion that the respondents / plaintiffs have established their right in respect of the suit property and accordingly, granted the relief in favour of the respondents / plaintiffs and the same need not be interfered with by this Court. 10. Before discussing the contentions of the appellant / defendant, it has to be seen whether the plaintiffs who filed the suit, have established their case or not. The plaintiffs are placing reliance on Ex. A.4 sale deed with regard to their title. It is pertinent to note that the said sale deed has not been disputed by the defendant. Therefore, on the principle that admitted facts need not be proved, the Trial Court had decreed the suit with respect to the 'A' schedule property and since the same was not challenged, it has become final. 11. As regards the aspect of adverse possession pleaded by the appellant, the same is only to be rejected. Therefore, on the principle that admitted facts need not be proved, the Trial Court had decreed the suit with respect to the 'A' schedule property and since the same was not challenged, it has become final. 11. As regards the aspect of adverse possession pleaded by the appellant, the same is only to be rejected. While it was pleaded by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant / defendant has got title by adverse possession and that the defendant's father and his predecessors were in possession of the property for more than 100 years, no evidence was put forth in support of the said contention even though the burden is on him to prove the same. At this stage, this Court pertinently points out that the Adverse Possession essentially involves a certain property - which may be movable or immovable and the character of possession being adverse etc. An Adverse Possession implies Possession - (i)commenced in wrong and (ii)maintained against right. 12. In the eye of law, an owner would be deemed to be in possession of a property so long as there is no intrusion. Non-use of the property by the owner even for a long time won't affect his title. But the position will be altered when another person takes possession of the property and asserts a right over it. Adverse possession is a hostile possession by clearly asserting hostile title in denial of the title of true owner. It is a well- settled principle that a party claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession is 'nec vi, nec clam, nec precario', that is, peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that their possession is adverse to the true owner. It must start with a wrongful disposition of the rightful owner and be actual, visible, exclusive, hostile and continued over the statutory period. Physical fact of exclusive possession and the animus possidendi to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner are the most important factors that are to be accounted in cases of this nature. 13. No doubt, plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law. Physical fact of exclusive possession and the animus possidendi to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner are the most important factors that are to be accounted in cases of this nature. 13. No doubt, plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law. Therefore, a person who claims adverse possession should establish (a) on what date he came into possession; (b) what was the nature of his possession; (c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party; (d) how long his possession has continued; and (e) his possession was open and undisturbed. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour. Since he is trying to defeat the rights of true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession. 14. In the case on hand, the defendant has not proved all the above 5 factors except claiming title by adverse possession. Unless the circumstances as stated above are established by the defendant, the Court cannot hold the question of adverse possession in favour of the defendant. A person pleading adverse possession cannot have equities in his favour as his attempt is to defeat the rights of the true owner. 15. In the instant case, the plaintiffs, who claim to be the real owners under Ex. A.4, contended that the appellant / defendant had not brought the alleged possession to the knowledge of the plaintiffs. According to them, it is only after the suit was filed in the year 1999, the defendant has taken the plea of adverse possession. 16. In this regard, learned counsel counsel for the appellant / defendant contended that the intention of the statute is not to punish one who neglects to assert the rights but to protect those who had maintained the possession of the property for the required statutory period. 17. The said principle was assailed by the learned counsel for the respondents placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy and others vs. Revamma and others (2007) 6 SCC 59 ]. 17. The said principle was assailed by the learned counsel for the respondents placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy and others vs. Revamma and others (2007) 6 SCC 59 ]. The learned counsel, more particularly, referred to paragraph 31 of the judgment which reads as follows:- "Inquiry into the particulars of Adverse Possession Inquiry into the starting point of adverse possession i.e. dates as to when the paper owner got dispossessed is an important aspect to be considered. In the instant case the starting point of adverse possession and Other facts such as the manner in which the possession operationalized, nature of possession: whether open, continuous, uninterrupted or hostile possession - have not been disclosed. An observation has been made in this regard in S.M. Karim v. Mst. Bibi Sakina [ AIR 1964 SC 1254 ]: "Adverse possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and extent and a plea is required at the least to show when possession becomes adverse so that the starting point of limitation against the party affected can be found. There is no evidence here when possession became adverse, if it at all did and a mere suggestion in the relief clause that there was an uninterrupted possession for "several 12 years" or that the plaintiff had acquired "an absolute title" was not enough to raise such a plea. Long possession is not necessarily adverse possession and the prayer clause is not a substitute for a plea." 18. In the very same judgment, in paragraph 53, Their Lordships have observed as follows:- "The European Council of Human Rights importantly laid down three pronged test to judge the interference of government with the right of "peaceful enjoyment of property". While referring to Beyeler v. Italy, it was held that the "interference" should comply with the principle of lawfulness pursue a legitimate aim (public interest) by means reasonably proportionate to the aim sought to be realized." 19. While referring to Beyeler v. Italy, it was held that the "interference" should comply with the principle of lawfulness pursue a legitimate aim (public interest) by means reasonably proportionate to the aim sought to be realized." 19. Following the above decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the recent decision in State of Haryana vs. Mukesh Kumar and others (2011) 10 SCC 404 ] observed in paragraphs 40 and 41 in the following words:- Para 40 :"The Parliament must seriously consider at least to abolish "bad faith" adverse possession, i.e., adverse possession achieved through intentional trespassing, actually believing it to be their own could receive title through adverse possession sends a wrong signal to the society at large. Such a change would ensure that only those who had established attachments to the land through honest means would be entitled to legal relief. Para 41 :In case, the Parliament decides to retain the law of adverse possession, the Parliament might simply require adverse possession claimants to possess the property in question for a period of 30 to 50 years, rather than a mere 12. Such an extension would help to ensure that successful claimants have lived on the land for generations and are therefore less likely to be individually culpable for the trespass (although their forebears might). A longer statutory period would also decrease the frequency of adverse possession suits and ensure that only those claimants most intimately connected with the land acquire it, while only the most passive and unprotective owners lose title." From the above extracted portion, it is clear that the intention of the above decision was to stop any dishonest person or a trespasser to gain a legal title for his illegal possession. 20. Coming to the facts of the present case, it is seen that the learned trial Judge has held that the plaintiffs failed to prove the possession over the disputed property. On the other hand, the Lower Appellate Court held that the defendant has not established any title and also not denied right to which the plaintiffs are entitled under Ex. A.4. On the other hand, the Lower Appellate Court held that the defendant has not established any title and also not denied right to which the plaintiffs are entitled under Ex. A.4. The lower Appellate Court while taking note of the fact that possession of the defendant was admitted by the plaintiff, held that the contention of the defendant claiming ownership by way of adverse possession, was not maintainable as the appellant / defendant being neither the owner nor in possession of the property for the statutory period, has no locus standi to challenge the right to which the plaintiffs are entitled. The lower Appellate Court has categorically held that the plea of adverse possession has not been established by the defendant and the plaintiffs have proved title and as such, they are entitled to the decree as prayed for. 21. As per Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court's scope for interference with finding of the Court below while exercising jurisdiction is, indeed, very limited. An appeal under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code can be entertained by High Court only on a Substantial Question of Law. However, if the finding of the subordinate Courts, on facts, are contrary to the evidence on record and are perverse, such a finding can be set aside by the High Court in an Appeal under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code. 22. As a rule, the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Second Appeal on the ground of an erroneous finding on fact, however, gross or inexcusable the error may appear to be or as a rule, in Second Appeal, finding of fact should not be disturbed. However, if they are based on no evidence or in disregard of evidence or on inadmissible evidence or against the basic principles of law or on the face of it, there appears an error of law or procedure or when there is a vast divergence between the pleadings and proof, such findings can be interfered with, as opined by this Court. 23. In view of the aforesaid reasons and taking note of the fact that the appellant / defendant has not established to the satisfaction of this Court that he has been in enjoyment of the suit property and also, it is admitted that the plaintiffs / respondents have purchased the suit property under Ex. 23. In view of the aforesaid reasons and taking note of the fact that the appellant / defendant has not established to the satisfaction of this Court that he has been in enjoyment of the suit property and also, it is admitted that the plaintiffs / respondents have purchased the suit property under Ex. A.4 and taking an over all assessment of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court holds that the Lower Appellate Court has rightly rendered a pure finding of fact and consequently, decreed the suit in toto, in Appeal in a proper way and looking at from any point of view, since the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court are based on pure finding of fact, they do not require any interference in the hands of this Court because of the fact they do not suffer from any material irregularity or patent illegality. Viewed in that perspective, the Substantial Questions of Law are answered against the appellant / defendant and find favour with the respondents / plaintiffs. In the result, the Second Appeal fails and the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Consequently, the judgement and decree dated 26.09.2008 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Arni, Tiruvannamalai, in A.S. No. 78 of 2007 are confirmed. As a sequel thereto, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.